The earliest Courts under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801) heard few cases, and the Supreme Court's first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving a procedural issue.[4] Further, the Court initially lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.[5]

The Court lacked its own building until 1935; from 1791 to 1801, it met in Philadelphia's City Hall.

Composition

Advertisements

Size of the Court

The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, but Article III authorizes the Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices. As the country grew geographically, Congress increased the number of justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: the court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863.

At the request of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act (1866) which provided that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court should have eventually reached seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. However, this law did not play out to completion, for in the Judiciary Act of 1869,[74] also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of justices was again set at nine, where it has since remained.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937, seeking to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement; under Roosevelt's proposal, such appointments would continue until the Court reached a maximum size of 15 justices. Ostensibly, the proposal was made to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but the President's actual purpose was to pack the Court with justices who would support New Deal policies and legislation.[75] This plan, usually called the "Court-packing Plan", failed in Congress and proved a political disaster for Roosevelt.[76] The balance of the Court shifted with the retirement of Willis Van Devanter and the confirmation of Hugo Black in August 1937. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven Supreme Court justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[77]

Appointment and confirmation

Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the President power to appoint Justices "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate". Most Presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a Justice's decisions may end up being contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. Because the Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate anyone to serve. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate.

In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press, and from advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee, depending on whether the nominee's track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The Committee's practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent; the first nominee to appear before the committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Wall Street. However, the modern practice of questioning began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955.[78] A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Once the Committee reports out the nomination, the whole Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork.

Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a Supreme Court nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate on the nomination has begun in the full Senate. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs the debate, preventing a final vote on the nominee. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. However, President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. The President may also withdraw a nominee's name before the actual confirmation vote occurs. This usually happens when the President feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed: most recently, President George W. Bush withdrew his nomination of Harriet Miers before Committee hearings had begun.

Before 1981, the approval process of Justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees Justices as playing a more political role than in the past.[79]

Once the Senate confirms the nomination by an affirmative vote, the President must prepare and sign a commission, and have the Seal of the Department of Justice affixed to the document before the new Justice can take office.[80] The seniority of an associate justice is based on the date of commissioning, not the date of confirmation or swearing-in.[81]

Recess appointments

When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the Senate must confirm the nominee. Of the two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a regular appointment. No president since Dwight Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial even when applied to lower federal courts. During the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership of the Senate specifically blocked Republican President George W. Bush from making any recess appointments with the use of pro forma sessions.

Tenure

The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is well understood to mean Justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they can voluntarily resign or retire. A Justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction. However, only one Justice has been impeached by the House (Samuel Chase, in 1805) and he was acquitted in the Senate. Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, once in 1953 and again in 1970), but they have not reached a vote in the House. No mechanism presently exists for removing a Justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, both unable to resign and unable to resume service.[82]

Because Justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. and William H. Rehnquist were nominated to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II, who retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations such as the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's nomination in 1994 and the departures of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (by death and retirement, respectively) in 2005 and 2006.

Despite the variability, all but four Presidents up to and including Barack Obama have been able to appoint at least one Justice. President William Henry Harrison died a month after taking office, though his successor (John Tyler) made an appointment during that presidential term. President Zachary Taylor likewise died early in his presidential term, although his successor (Millard Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. President Andrew Johnson was denied the opportunity to appoint a Justice by a contraction in the size of the Court (see Size of the Court above). President Jimmy Carter is the only President who completed at least one full term in office without making a nomination to the Court during his presidency.

As of March 18, 2010, the average age of the justices is 68 years, 9 months.

Retired justices

Currently, there are two living retired Justices of the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter. As retired Justices, they may be designated for temporary assignments to sit with several United States Courts of Appeals. Nominally, such assignments are made by the Chief Justice; they are analogous to the types of assignments that may be given to judges of lower courts who have selected senior status, except that a retired Supreme Court Justice never sits as a member of the Supreme Court itself.

Research suggests that justices sometimes strategically plan their decisions to leave the bench, with personal, institutional, and partisan factors playing a role.[84] The fear of mental decline and death often motivates justices to step down. The desire to maximize the Court's strength and legitimacy through one retirement at a time, when the Court is in recess, and during non-presidential election years suggests a concern for institutional health. Finally, if at all possible, justices seek to depart under favorable presidents and Senates to ensure that a like-minded successor will be appointed.

Seniority and seating

Many of the internal operations of the Court are organized by the seniority of the Justices; the Chief Justice is considered the most senior member of the Court, regardless of the length of his or her service. The Associate Justices are then ranked by the length of their service.

During Court sessions, the Justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate right, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right when looking at the bench from the perspective of a lawyer arguing before the Court: Alito, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens (most senior Associate Justice), Roberts (Chief Justice), Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, and Sotomayor. In the official yearly Court photograph, Justices are arranged similarly, with the five most senior members sitting in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions, and the four most junior Justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions.

In the Justices' private conferences, the current practice is for Justices to speak and vote in order of seniority from the Chief Justice first to the most junior Associate Justice last. The most junior Associate Justice in these conferences is tasked with any menial labor the Justices may require as they convene alone, such as answering the door of their conference room, serving coffee, and transmitting the orders of the court to the court's clerk.[85] Justice Joseph Story served the longest as the junior Justice, from February 3, 1812, to September 1, 1823, for a total of 4,228 days. Justice Stephen Breyer follows close behind, with 4,199 days when Samuel Alito joined the court on January 31, 2006.[86]

Salary

For the year 2010, an Associate Justice is paid $213,900 and the Chief Justice $223,500.[87]

Article III of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from reducing the pay for Supreme Court justices.

Judicial leanings

While justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties, as is accepted practice in the legislative and executive branches, jurists are informally categorized in legal and political circles as being judicial conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Such leanings, however, refer to legal outlook rather than a political or legislative one.

Six of the current justices of the court were appointed by Republican Presidents, while three were appointed by Democratic Presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito compose the Court's conservative wing. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing.[88] Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally considered a conservative who "occasionally vote[s] with the liberals",[89] is most likely to be the swing vote that determines the outcome of close cases.[90] Recent appointee Justice Sotomayor has voted only in cases that were decided with at least seven votes, with two exceptions.[91] Her first opinion for the Court was on a procedural issue;[92] her second was on criminal appellate procedure;[93] her third was on statutory interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code.[94]

Justice Sotomayor has joined dissents in two cases: South Carolina v. North Carolina,[95], and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[96] In the former, she joined Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Ginsburg in an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, written by the Chief Justice. In Citizens United, she joined part of the opinion for the Court (written by Justice Kennedy; the part joined by Justice Sotomayor was also joined all other justices except Justice Thomas), and dissented in part, joining the dissent written by Justice John Paul Stevens (which was also joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer). Other than these two cases, Justice Sotomayor has not joined any opinion that was not joined by at least six other justices, nor has she written any concurrences or dissents as of February 23, 2010 (2010 -02-23).

In an article about Justice Stevens for The New Yorker published in March 2010, Jeffrey Toobin stated: "So far, Sotomayor seems to be voting much like Souter, an ally of Stevens, whom she replaced."[97]

Quarters

The Supreme Court first met on 1 February 1790, at the Merchants' Exchange Building in New York City, which then was the national capital. Philadelphia became the capital city later in 1790, and the Court followed Congress and the President there, meeting briefly in Independence Hall, and then from 1791 to 1800 at Old City Hall at 5th and Chestnut Streets. After Washington, D.C., became the capital in 1800, the Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol building until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home at One First Street Northeast, Washington, DC. The four-story building was designed in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the Capitol complex and Library of Congress by architect Cass Gilbert, and is clad in marble quarried chiefly in Vermont. The building includes space for the Courtroom, Justices' chambers, an extensive law library, various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services such as workshop, stores, cafeteria and a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the Architect of the Capitol. However, it maintains its own police force, the Supreme Court Police, separate from the Capitol Police.

Due chiefly to security concerns, the present building is being remodeled (2009) to allow installation of security monitors. The renovation will remove access to the building through the expansive and iconic front steps.[98]

Visitors can tour the building on their own, though not the courtroom itself.[99] The building is open to the public from 9am to 4:30pm weekdays but closed on weekends and holidays.[100] It is located behind the United States Capitol at One First Street NE and Maryland Avenue[100][101] There's a cafeteria, gift shop, exhibits, and a half-hour informational film.[99] When the Court is not in session, lectures about the courtroom are held hourly from 9:30am to 3:30pm and reservations are not necessary.[99] When the Court is in session the public may attend Oral Arguments, which are held twice each morning on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays in two-week intervals from October through late April, with breaks during December and February. Visitors are seated on a first-come first-served basis. One estimate is there are about 250 seats available.[102] Sometimes, there are also afternoon argument sessions.[100] The number of open seats varies from case to case. For important cases, some visitors arrive the day before and wait through the night. In mid-May until the end of June, the court releases orders and opinions beginning at 10am, and these 15 to 30 minute sessions are open to the public on a similar basis.[99]Supreme Court Police are available to answer questions.[100]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

”

The jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbade federal courts from hearing cases "commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." However, states may waive this immunity, and Congress may abrogate the states' immunity in certain circumstances (see Sovereign immunity). In addition to constitutional constraints, Congress is authorized by Article III to regulate the court's appellate jurisdiction: for example, the federal courts may consider "Controversies ... between Citizens of different States" only if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; otherwise, the case may only be brought in state courts.

The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.

Federal versus state power. There has been debate throughout American history about the boundary between federal and state power. While Framers such as James Madison[129] and Alexander Hamilton[130] argued in the Federalist Papers that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state governments,[131][132][133][134] others argue that expansive federal power is good and consistent with what the Framers wanted.[135] The Supreme Court has been criticized for giving the federal government too much power to interfere with state authority. One criticism is that it has allowed the federal government to misuse the Commerce Clause by upholding regulations and legislation which have little to do with interstate commerce, but that were enacted under the guise of regulating interstate commerce; and by voiding state legislation for allegedly interfering with interstate commerce. For example, the Commerce Clause was used to protect non-commercial cave bugs within a state.[136] Chief Justice John Marshall asserted Congress's power over interstate commerce was "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution."[137] Justice Alito said congressional authority under the Commerce Clause is "quite broad."[138] Modern day theorist Robert B. Reich suggests debate over the Commerce Clause continues today.[137] Advocates of states' rights such as constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman have also criticized the court, saying it has misused the Fourteenth Amendment to undermine state authority. Justice Brandeis, in arguing for allowing the states to operate without federal interference, suggested that "states should be free to serve as laboratories of democracy."[139] One critic wrote "the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law."[140] However, others see the Fourteenth Amendment as a positive force that extends "protection of those rights and guarantees to the state level."[141]

Judicial interference in political disputes. Some Court decisions have been criticized for injecting the Court into the political arena, and deciding questions that are the purview of the other two branches of government. The Bush v. Gore decision, in which the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election and effectively chose George W. Bush over Al Gore, has been criticized extensively, particularly by liberals.[142][143][144][145][146][147] Another example are Court decisions on apportionment and re-districting: in Baker v. Carr, the court decided it could rule on apportionment questions; Justice Frankfurter in a "scathing dissent" argued against the court wading into so-called "political questions."[148]

Failing to protect individual rights. Court decisions have been criticized for failing to protect individual rights: the Dred Scott (1857) decision upheld slavery;[149]Plessy v Ferguson (1896) upheld segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal;[150]Kelo v. City of New London (2005) was criticized by prominent politicians, including New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, as undermining property rights.[151][152] A student criticized a 1988 ruling that allowed school officials "to block publication of a student article in the high school newspaper."[153] Some critics suggest the 2009 bench with a conservative majority has "become increasingly hostile to voters" by siding with Indiana's voter identification laws which tend to "disenfranchise large numbers of people without driver’s licenses, especially poor and minority voters," according to one report.[154] Senator Al Franken criticized the court for "eroding individual rights."[128] However, others argue that the Court is too protective of some individual rights, particularly those of people accused of crimes or in detention. For example, Chief Justice Warren Burger was an outspoken critic of the exclusionary rule, and Justice Scalia criticized the Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush for being too protective of the rights of Guantanamo detainees, on the grounds that habeas corpus was "limited" to sovereign territory.[155]

Supreme Court has too much power. This criticism is related to complaints about judicial activism. George Will wrote that the court has an "increasingly central role in American governance."[156] It was criticized for intervening in bankruptcy proceedings regarding ailing carmaker Chrysler Corporation in 2009.[157] A reporter wrote that "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's intervention in the Chrysler bankruptcy" left open the "possibility of further judicial review" but argued overall that the intervention was a proper use of Supreme Court power to check the executive branch.[157]Warren E. Burger, before becoming Chief Justice, argued that since the Supreme Court has such "unreviewable power" it is likely to "self-indulge itself" and unlikely to "engage in dispassionate analysis".[158]Larry Sabato wrote "excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court."[159]

Courts are poor check on executive power. British constitutional scholar Adam Tomkins sees flaws in the American system of having courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) act as checks on the Executive and Legislative branches; he argues that because the courts must wait, sometimes for years, for cases to wind their way through the system, their ability to restrain the other two branches is severely weakened.[160][161]

Not choosing enough cases to review. Senator Arlen Specter said the court should "decide more cases."[128] On the other hand, although Justice Scalia acknowledged in a 2009 interview that the number of cases that the Court hears now is smaller today than when he first joined the Supreme Court, he also stated that he has not changed his standards for deciding whether to review a case, nor does he believe his colleagues have changed their standards. He attributed the high volume of cases in the late 1980s, at least in part, to an earlier flurry of new federal legislation that was making its way through the Courts.[162]

Secret proceedings. The court has been criticized for keeping its deliberations hidden from public view.[163] Its inner workings are difficult for reporters to cover, like a closed "cartel", only revealing itself through "public events and printed releases, with nothing about its inner workings," according to a review of Jeffrey Toobin's expose The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court.[146] The reviewer writes: "few (reporters) dig deeply into court affairs. It all works very neatly; the only ones hurt are the American people, who know little about nine individuals with enormous power over their lives."[146]Larry Sabato complains about the court's "insularity."[159] However, in recent years, many justices have appeared on television, written books, and made public statements to journalists.[162][164] In a 2009 interview on C-SPAN, journalists Joan Biskupic (of USA Today) and Lyle Denniston (of SCOTUSblog) argued that the Court is a "very open" institution, with only the Justices' private conferences being inaccessible to others.[162]

Creating a culture of legal intimidation. Critic Philip K. Howard in The Death of Common Sense and Life Without Lawyers criticized the court for promoting a culture in which "law is wielded as a weapon of intimidation rather than as an instrument of protection."[165] It leads to "a nation paralyzed by fear, unwilling to assume responsibility, both overly reliant on authority and distrustful of it."[165] Howard deplores a legal culture in which the "rights" of "whoever might disagree" have trumped common sense.[166] Specifically, Howard criticized the Earl Warren court for too much "sympathy for the little man."[167] He criticized the Conley v. Gibson decision for opening "the floodgates to abusive litigation."[168]

Lifetime tenure. Critic Larry Sabato wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day."[159]Sanford Levinson has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.[169]James MacGregor Burns stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."[123] Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for justices, as proposed by Levinson[170] and Sabato[159][171] as well as a mandatory retirement age proposed by Richard Epstein.[172] However, others suggest lifetime tenure brings substantial benefits, such as impartiality and freedom from political pressure. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 wrote "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office."[173]

^JUSTICES GINSBURG, STEVENS, SOUTER, BREYER (2000-12-13). "Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres246.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court ... The Virginia court refused to obey this Court's Fairfax's Devisee mandate to enter judgment for the British subject's successor in interest. That refusal led to the Court's pathmarking decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (1816)."

^Irons, Peter; Howard Zinn (wrote foreword) (2006). A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution. United States: Penguin Books. pp. 176, 177. ISBN 0143037372. "The rhetorical battle that followed the Dred Scott decision, as we know, later erupted into the gunfire and bloodshed of the Civil War (p.176)... his opinion (Taney's) touched off an explosive reaction on both sides of the slavery issue... (p.177)"

^"Liberty of Contract?". Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. 2009-10-31. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/libertyofk.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The term "substantive due process" is often used to describe the approach first used in Lochner--the finding of liberties not explicitly protected by the text of the Constitution to be impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the 1960s, long after the Court repudiated its Lochner line of cases, substantive due process became the basis for protecting personal rights such as the right of privacy, the right to maintain intimate family relationships."

^NANCY GIBBS (Dec. 9, 1991). "America's Holy War". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974430,00.html. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "In the landmark 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the high court threw out a brief nondenominational prayer composed by state officials that was recommended for use in New York State schools. "It is no part of the business of government," ruled the court, "to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite.""

^William R. Mattox Jr., Katrina Trinko (August 17, 2009). "Teach the Bible? Of course.". USA Today. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/column-teach-the-bible-of-course-.html. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Public schools need not proselytize — indeed, must not — in teaching students about the Good Book ... In Abington School District v. Schempp, decided in 1963, the Supreme Court stated that "study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education," was permissible under the First Amendment."

^"Bakke Wins, Quotas Lose". Time Magazine. July 10, 1978. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946798,00.html. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Split almost exactly down the middle, the Supreme Court last week offered a Solomonic compromise. It said that rigid quotas based solely on race were forbidden, but it also said that race might legitimately be an element in judging students for admission to universities. It thus approved the principle of 'affirmative action'..."

^VIKRAM DAVID AMAR (July 27, 2005). "Casing John Roberts". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/opinion/27amar.html. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "SEMINOLE TRIBE v. FLORIDA (1996) In this seemingly technical 11th Amendment dispute about whether states can be sued in federal courts, Justice O'Connor joined four others to override Congress's will and protect state prerogatives, even though the text of the Constitution contradicts this result."

^Michael A. Lindenberger (Michael A. Lindenberger). "The Court's Gay Rights Legacy". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1818504,00.html. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case overturned convictions against two Houston men, whom police had arrested after busting into their home and finding them engaged in sex. And for the first time in their lives, thousands of gay men and women who lived in states where sodomy had been illegal were free to be gay without being criminals."

^"Supreme Court decision". NEW YORK TIMES. January 16, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/16/business/16BTEX.html. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "the Supreme Court decision today upholding the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which added 20 years to all existing copyrights. The vote in the case, Eldred v. Ashcroft, was 7 to 2. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion. Justices Stephen G. Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented."

^JOHN YOO (June 17, 2008). "The Supreme Court Goes to War". Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121366596327979497.html. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "Last week's Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush has been painted as a stinging rebuke of the administration's antiterrorism policies. From the celebrations on most U.S. editorial pages, one might think that the court had stopped a dictator from trampling civil liberties. Boumediene did anything but. The 5-4 ruling..."

^ See for example Sandra Day O'Connor:How the first woman on the Supreme Court became its most influential justice, by Joan Biskupic, Harper Collins, 2005, p. 105. Also Rookie on the Bench: The Role of the Junior Justice by Clare Cushman, Journal of Supreme Court History 32 no. 3 (2008), pp. 282–296.

^ Several per curiam decisions; eight unanimous decisions, one 8-1 decision, one 8-0 decision, three 7-2 decisions, one decision that was unanimous in part and 8-1 in part, and one decision that was 8-1 in part and 7-2 in part. The only exceptions so far is Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, decided 8-1 in part and 5-4 in part, where Sotomayor joined the minority in the latter part, and an original jurisdiction decision, South Carolina v. North Carolina, where she joined an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, written by Chief Justice Roberts and also joined by Justices Thomas and Ginsburg.

^Abraham Lincoln (March 4, 1861). "First Inaugural Address". National Center. http://www.nationalcenter.org/LincolnFirstInaugural.html. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

^Alexander Hamilton (aka Publius) (1789). "Federalist No. 28". Independent Journal. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp. Retrieved 2009-10-24. "Power being almost always the rival of power; the General Government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state government; and these will have the same disposition toward the General Government."

^Alexander Hamilton (December 14, 1787). "The Federalist No. 22 (quote: 4th para)". New York Packet. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-27. "The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy."

^MADISON (January 22, 1788). "Federalist Papers". New York Packet. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp. Retrieved 2009-10-27. "The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation, which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State within its own limits."

^"Philip K. Howard, New York Sun". Common Good. June 4, 2007. http://commongood.org/learn-reading-cgpubs-opeds.html. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "Common Good Chair Philip K. Howard discusses the Supreme Court's recent repudiation of Conley v. Gibson, a 1957 case which opened the floodgates to abusive litigation, and argues that the Court should take responsibility for a shift in judicial approach towards affirmative assertion of values of reasonableness"

^Alexander Hamilton (June 14, 1788). "The Federalist No. 78". Independent Journal. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-28. "and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security."